Malcolm Rowe writes:
> I think I'm agreeing with you: I meant that we can't literally just
> pass streams to be inherited by child processes. What you said above,
> I think I said in more detail next:
>
Oh, below you said "hard" which I maybe misunderstood to mean "very hard"
or something:-) Anyway, we agree this is doable if we want to.
> > > Instead, we'd need to create a temporary file (pipe?) to store the
> > > input or output and then connect filehandles to that, marshalling the
> > > data to or from the svn_stream_t* to the filehandle as necessary.
> > > (We'd also want the ability to detect and extract filehandles from
> > > apr_file_t-wrapping-svn_stream_t's, because I suspect we'd want to
> > > short-circuit all that nonsense in the usual case).
> > >
> > Why?
> >
>
> Why would we want to special-case the file-wrapping-stream case? Only
> because it seems a little mad to use something that provides a pipe to
> a pipe reader/stream writer that's wrapping a file handle when we could
> instead just provide the file handle directly.
>
Maybe mad, but not a big problem IMO. If we think the API change
would be worth it, then I don't think we need to wory about this small
performance penalty.
> > I don't think it would be too hard, actually. It wouldn't be worth the
> > complexity just for this Perl use case, but I think it would improve
> > our APIs in general. In general, we should pass streams of data using
> > svn_stream_t objects in our APIs rather than files.
> >
>
> I completely agree; I just meant that it sounded like a lot of work for
> the one specific case.
>
Agreed.
Best,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 9 19:19:27 2006